Our dogma is that chiropractors only correct vertebral subluxations to enable the innate intelligence to be more fully expressed. Our philosophy includes the principles, theories, science and concepts that give credibility to and explain our dogmatic objective. Our philosophy may change as our reasoning becomes more sound, as scientific discoveries impact it, and as we refine our deductive reasoning. That does not and must not change our objective. It merely give it more credibility. We do not compromise our objective. But we must be willing to change our philosophy in keeping with our objective.
I’m interested in the notion that the defining characteristic of a principled chiropractor is what they do and do not do rather than the why behind both of these.
To my mind, the job of the chiropractor (particularly in the modern age) is to facilitate in all ways possible the expression of the patient’s innate capacity for health and function. While proper spinal alignment is certain a necessary prerequisite to that, I don’t believe that it itself is sufficient. I also believe that nutrition (taking in the proper substrates in the proper amounts so that the bodies innate wisdom has the materials to physically express the health of which it is the origin), mental attitude, proper physical activity, and the avoidance of things known to represent a toxic load to the body must be taught, and that all of these topics fall well within the scope of proper principled chiropractic.
I often hear that although these other factors are important, they are not the job of the chiropractor, and that the DC should limit himself to the removal of physical vertebral subluxations. While I recognize that a DC may choose to practice this way (and that he will certainly help a great many people through only these means), I feel to restrict the very big idea of chiropractic to such a mechanistic intervention is somewhat short sighted. I also believe that we do the very big chiropractic idea a disservice by defining it based on what is essentially a pathological adaptation (the subluxation) rather than on what I believe to be the truly unique and revolutionary concept within the field (that the body is intelligent and, when provided the appropriate resources, is able to heal and function better than we can induce it to from the outside).
In response to this argument I often hear that there are other professions to teach people about these various other facets of health. It is my respectful opinion, however, that this is unrealistic and somewhat of a copout. Certainly there are professions who will teach about exercise, diet, mental health, toxins, etc., but how many of them out there do so from the uniquely chiropractic perspective? How many nutritionists (unfamiliar with chiropractic principles) advise their clinics to eat in the way that a well educated, principled chiropractor would (and equally important, for the same reasons that the chiropractor would)?
It’s my feeling that although the adjustment is great gift, it is not the greatest we have to offer humanity. Far greater than even the removal of nervous system interference is a knowledge and conviction of the body’s ability to always respond appropriate when it has been given everything it needs to do so. Many who are adjusted find themselves back in the medical model (and perhaps never even leave it), but I doubt that many who have been made aware of this principle (and who have seen it at work in every area of their lives, not just their spines and nervous systems) would ever go back.
First, Dr. Sisk, welcome to the blog. I’m not sure what a “principled ” chiropractor is. Many chiropractors who practice much differently than me are principled people, so I really do not use that term vey much. I think our objective says what we do and WHY we do it. While I agree that “the job of the chiropractor (particularly in the modern age) is to facilitate in ……….. the expression of the patient’s innate capacity for health and function. “, I question the “all ways possible” part. I also recognize that there are many ways to do that and perhaps, on occasions, treating medical diseases may be included. I do not choose to do that and I assume you do not either. As you say the adjustment is not “itself sufficient”. But I do not choose to do those other things either. We are all addressing the physical matter of the body (as you describe it mechanistic intervention). The OSC, however is doing his “mechanical” thing to remove interference to the expression of FORCE, the chiropractor who addresses the areas you mentioned is addressing the matter to affect the matter. Therein is the difference…affecting the matter to affect the matter and affecting the matter (correcting VS) to remove interference to the expression of FORCE. To affect the matter in order to change the matter necessitates knowing what the matter should be. To aid in the correction of VS so the ii of the body can change the matter is quite different in my opinion. I guess it all depends on where, at what point we want to intervene. I choose to intervene as little as possible and allow the PM’s ii to take over. I realize that in some situations outside-in intervention is necessary. I appreciate your argument that there are very few outside-in interventionists (affecting the matter to change the matter) practicing from a “uniquely chiropractic perspective”. I seriously doubt whether most chiropractic outside-in interventionists are. I’ve never met one. I think we need to teach our PM’s an ADIO perspective. Then, if and when they need outside-in intervention they can demand it from someone with a “uniquely ADIO perspective”. What encompasses that perspective is a topic for another time. I think your last paragraph is right on the money. But to take the time to adequately know how to intervene intelligently in changing the matter, which is always a monumental task, mostly impossible, and has some major chiropractic philosophical problems would take away the time to study and teach the ADIO perpspective and in the long run would benefit less of my fellow human beings. I think what most chiropractors that you are describing have is a feed a person a fish philosophy rather than the teach them to fish one. But thank you for sharing your perspective. I hope you will continue to contribute to this blog.
Could you elaborate more on “our philosophy may change”? If the philosophy is what sets our objective, and it does, how can a change in philosophy maintain the same objective?
Good question Paulo. BJ’s philosophy changed over the years. Anyone reading him from 1906 to 1961 can see that. Concepts like VS existing below axis to not existing below axis (and back again?). The mental impulse being measurable (EEMNPTGH) to not being measurable. VS being the cause of disease to being the cause of DIS-EASE. The Major Premise being theological to not being theological . Then there are philosophical concepts that BJ never seemed to change (in his writings) but he must have or should have, like ii being located in the brain, organ tissue, cellular intelligence, his preoccupation with sick people, and others. Reggie surely made some changes in the philosophy and others have and still are, some good most bad. But one thing BJ never deviated from was the idea that chiropractors correct vertebral subluxations to enable the ii of the body to be more fully expressed. That comes through in all his writings and that is our dogma, our objective.
“Chiropractic DOES NOT allow the Innate Intelligence to be more fully expressed. That is a bumper sticker philosophic error.”
Rob Sinnott
No wonder we are where we are.
Paulo, could you elaborate more on that? Is that your editorial on Rob’s quote? What exactly was the bumper sticker wording? While I would not word a bumper sticker like that one, I’d like to know what Rob and or you find so bad about it. Thanks.
Oh no! Don’t get me wrong Joe! I agree with you 100% on the chiropractic objective! This was what Rob said in a discussion I had with him, I honestly still don’t understand where he is coming from! I was pretty upset to know that a leader in our profession doesn’t have it clear.
Joe,
Paulo is not being honest and seems to want to start an argument. You asked for an explanation, which i had FULLY given Paulo, yet he only posted what he felt was inflammatory instead. That in itself is very disappointing to see in a student.
Innate Intelligence is perfect, as is it’s expression. The “expression” is not what in the tissue cell, as the reference Paulo made alludes, it is the mental impulse itself. The mental impulse is perfect and a Chiropractic adjustment can not improve upon that.
There is little doubt that what was originally intended by saying Chiropractic improves the expression of Innate Intelligence, was referring to the ramifications of the expression of the mental impulse in the tissue cell (matter). Some do not see this important point by the quote’s brevity. That is my point. Rarely do bumper sticker quotes capture the vital important subtle information needed to comprehend a concept fully.
Paulo did not offer you the explanation I gave him which he carefully clipped what he thought might anger you. Hats off to you for seeing through his ruse and asking for the context, which he sadly pretended did not exist. I have no doubt that you fully know this point, but many do not so I feel the need to explain it here for them.
Look forward to seeing you at IRAPS!
Keep smiling,
Rob S.
p.s. I have never been on this message bd before (nice to see though), so if there is a response, I likely won’t know unless someone tells me, unless there is an email that automatically gets sent.
Rob, thanks for your comment. Please feel free to comment anytime. Your insights are always welcome. I have met Paulo personally and he comments on this blog quite often. He is a fine young man, a dedicated chiropractor in South America. He is learning by leaps and bounds and is anxious to learn. He questions me on a regular basis. I did/do not think he had any malicious/nefarious intent. He is just interested in learning and refinining his understanding of chiropractic philosophy. Clearly, this medium leaves a lot to be desired as a means of communication, especially if we are using a language we do not communicate in regularly. As I recall, you and I had some misunderstandings a number of years ago in communicating on message boards. Face to face is always better but because we both had and still have the best interests of chiropractic at heart, we have gotten past any philosophical differences and remain good friends. I would encourage you to take into account Paulo’s youtful zeal as I do yours :). I’m sure if you would communicate further you would come to an aggreable understanding. Take care.
Ok Joe, if ii is not located in the brain, why do we say ABOVE DOWN,-inside out? I have noticed in your e-book you often say “above down vs. outside in”. If the innate brain is metaphysical as is mental impulse, technically there is no anatomical location, correct? If as Claude says, ii is a group of laws, why does ii need a brain or any central location? One more question, where is innate force converted to mental impulse, where does it add on or join in with or influence the nerve impulse?
For the same reason I say that I am flying to Florida in June rather than say I’m going to Atlanta, then Florida. In this case we combine the non-material and the material. BJ did it with the normal complete cycle. The other perspective is that, beside the expression of the mental impulse, the acronym ADIO, in my understanding, also addresses something “above” or greater than our educated mind and the “outside” concept pertains to educated function, which always originally comes from outside (taught to us). I have come to use it (in my e-booK) as a contrasting way of looking at life just as the theologian might use the terms divine viewpoint and human viewpoint.
Palmerian philosophy says there is an innate brain, where mental impulses are created from UF but its location is theoretical because we cannot see the metaphysical. Ii needs a brain only because that is the most effective and efficient way of carrying out its objective, uniting the material and the immmaterial. I’m sorry, Steve, but you have just exhausted your allowable number of questions for one post:) I’ve never heard of the innate force and the mental impulse as being different. I have always considered the terms synonomous. Perhaps you can explain how you are using/see them differently.
Joe,
Here I see you mentioning how the immaterial and metaphysical are connected to chiropractic terms. My contention is that this simply reflects how the theological nature of the Major Premise is apportioned out into the chiropractic principles. So given your claim that this immaterial quantity cannot be God/the Creator of the Universe …then what, in your opinion, is it?
It is a (Major) Premise, A Principle (#1), a Law (of organization), all of which are metaphysical terms/constructs. In theoloogy the word is remati (greek) a command, speech, that which is spoken, a declaration, a saying, a mandate. In Hebrews 1:3 it says the Creator “holds all things together by the word (remati-dative, singular, neuter, noun) of His power. God is never referred to in the neuter gender, but the Law which holds the world together is. So the Major Premise says there is a law/principle’declaration (ui) in all matter continually giving to it all its properties and actions thus maintaining it in existence.
Joe,
It seems quite clear that in the Major Premise has quantity (we’ll call “A”) which gives rise to an effect (we’ll call “B”). Therefore “A” is the cause of “B”. We can call this statement a “premise”. The premise is based on the relationship between “A” and “B”. “A” is not the premise, nor is “B”. The premise is the cause-effect relationship between the two. You might even say there is a Law of Organization here in which “A” is organizing “B”. But again, neither “A” nor “B” is the Law. Rather, the Law has to do with their relationship.
In the Major Premise “A” is ui and “B” is matter. Ui gives rise to matter. Therefore ui is the cause of matter. That is the premise. The premise is based on the relationship between Ui and matter. Ui is not the premise, nor is matter. The premise is the cause-effect relationship between the two. You might even say there is a Law of Organization here in which ui is organizing matter. But again, neither ui nor matter are the Law. Rather, the Law has to do with their relationship.
So again I ask you – what is this intangible we call ui?
Eric, I guess you have finally gotten the best of this discussion….I haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about. But as long as it is “quite clear” to you, that’s all that matters. Perhapa if you would not get into theology or higher mathamatics but confine your discussion to chiropractic philosophy and to something beside “BJ said it, I believe it, that settles it” we could get somewhere.
I’m thinking back to the term FORUNS or force units combined to make a mental impulse.
The OBJECTIVE of chiropractic is to locate, analyze and correct vertebral subluxations for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. Period. –
– The innate intelligence of the body is ALWAYS 100% fully expressing itself through the LIMITATIONS of living matter (pri.7,24). –
– A vertebral subluxation is a vertebra that has lost its juxtaposition with the one above, the one below, or both, to an extent less than a luxation, occluding and opening, impinging upon a nerve and interfering with the FLOW of the mental impulse between brain cell and tissue cell and vice versa. –
– The impingement upon a nerve further limits the transmitting matter and increases the limitations of matter of the body. Further limitations of the transmitting matter interfere with the FLOW of the mental impulse decreasing the degree or level of adaptation of the matter of the LIVING body (pri.24). –
– An innate force is an adapted universal force by the innate intelligence of the body (pri.23). This innate force in the LIVING human body is the MENTAL IMPULSE (pri.28,29,30). –
– WHEN the innate intelligence of the body adapts a universal force, (like a nerve impulse without intelligent direction which is only an electro-chemical stimulus potential) destructive toward matter (pri.26), the innate intelligence of the body is vesting or superimposing the NERVE impulse with INTELLIGENT DIRECTION, thus, the innate intelligence of the body TRANSforms the nerve impulse into a MENTAL impulse. –
– A mental impulse is a nerve impulse superimposed WITH INTELLIGENT DIRECTION that will never injure or destroy the structure in which it works (pri25).
– A nerve impulse is an electro-chemical stimulus potential without intelligent direction. It is a universal force unadapted by the innate intelligence of the body and is destructive toward structural matter (pri.26).
– Interference with the FLOW of the mental impulse means that there is a CHANGE in the character of the mental impulse. –
– The innate intelligence of the body is limited by the limitations of matter (pri.24) and due to the further limitation of the transmitting matter caused by the vertebral subluxation, the innate intelligence of the body will use whatever universal forces that enter the body and will use them in order to correct the vertebral subluxation. –
– The CORRECTION of the vertebral subluxation by the innate intelligence of the body will DECREASE the limitation of the transmitting matter thereby increasing the degree or level of adaption of the matter of the LIVING human body (pri.24,27,28,29,30,31,32,33).
– The OSC WHO chooses to practice the OBJECTIVE of chiropractic (LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body) participates in the introduction of an educated universal force into the specific subluxated vertebra with the intention and hope that the innate intelligence of the body will use that educated universal force in order to produce the SPECIFIC adjustment that will correct the SPECIFIC vertebral subluxation.
– The CHANGE in character of the mental impulse is due to the further limitation of the transmitting matter CAUSED by the vertebral subluxation and will decrease the degree or level of adaptation of the LIVING human body (24). –
– Literally, interfering with the FLOW of MENTAL impulse with intelligent direction means that there is a CHANGE back into a NERVE impulse without intelligent direction (it has lost its superimposed intelligence and is now only an electro-chemical stimulus potential) and as such is an unadapted universal force which is destructive toward structural matter (pri.26). That’s WHY the vertebral subluxation is an INTERFERENCE to the FLOW of mental impulse. –
– This interference with the transmission of innate forces (the FLOW of mental impulse) causes in-coordination of dis-ease (pri.30). –
– Interference with transmission in the body is always directly or indirectly due to subluxations in the spinal column (pri.31). VS is the cause of dis-ease.
– Interference with the FLOW of mental impulse CAUSES a loss of intelligent direction and the mental impulse is now reverted back to a nerve impulse only which is dis-eased having no intelligent direction.
– Dis-ease is a NERVE impulse without intelligent direction (unadapted uf) due to the further limitations of the transmitting matter caused by a vertebral subluxation. This will interfere with the mission of the innate intelligence of the body which is to maintain the material of the LIVING body in active organization(pri.22) by further limiting the transmitting matter, decreasing the degree or level of adaptation of the matter of the body and will prevent all parts of the body from having co-ordinated action for mutual benefit (pri23). –
– The matter of the organs and systems of the body is not intelligent (not smart — not dumb). The matter is compliant to the mental impulse with intelligent direction (message-information). The matter will produce quantity and quality of product and by-products according to the information it receives. Liver is informed to produce 2 liters of bile by the mental impulse with intelligent direction for co-ordinated action of the parts of the body. Liver complies. —- If a vertebral subluxation occurs, liver is receiving a nerve impulse without intelligent direction (lacking ease) and is now informed to produce 3 liters of bile instead of 2. Liver complies. There is NOTHING wrong with the matter of the liver. Liver functions as well before the subluxation as after the subluxation. Liver is compliant to the informations received. This will create a lack of harmonious action of ALL the matter of the body as excess bile is now flowing through and will further limit adaption of the matter of the LIVING body.
– The interference with the FLOW of mental impulse is between brain cell and tissue cell. Between matter and matter. –
– In the LIVING human body this will result in an increase of limitation of matter, thereby limiting its adaptation from the innate intelligence of the body as the innate intelligence of the body is limited by the limitations of matter (pri.24). –
– In the LIVING human body, the second component of the triune, FORCE has been compromised (pri.29). –
– Through our deductive reasoning and we can state in truth that: –
– THE OBJECTIVE OF CHIROPRACTIC IS TO LOCATE, ANALYZE AND CORRECT VERTEBRAL SUBLUXATIONS FOR A FULL EXPRESSION OF THE INNATE FORCES OF THE INNATE INTELLIGENCE OF THE BODY. PERIOD.
–
Paulo Henrique Sugimoto 04/12/2012, 10:10 am:
Oh no! Don’t get me wrong Joe! I agree with you 100% on the chiropractic objective! This was what Rob said in a discussion I had with him, I honestly still don’t understand where he is coming from! I was pretty upset to know that a leader in our profession doesn’t have it clear.
Paulo, to many of the green-bookers, if it’s not verbatim right out of their holy writ, well then it’s just pure heresy. It’s a shame BJ left us in ’61 because with all the slipping and checking AND DEVELOPING of the philosophy, he sure as heck would not be in the same place he was in ’61. One of the quotes that Reggie was so fond of saying (and that I did not find out until today that it wasn’t his creation, ha, silly me): “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”, – – – – Isaac Newton. Thankfully we have (and have had) some great minds such as Reggie, Joe S, Joe D, Thom Gelardi, David Koch and others who are able to stand on the shoulders of DD and BJ and continue forward with refinements of the philosophy and as Joe S said in another post here, not be “Camping At the Gravesite (or Worshipping at the Urn, as the Case May Be) “.
https://chiropracticoutsidethebox.com/?s=camping
meant to say……. It’s a shame BJ left us in ’61 because with all OF HIS slipping and checking AND DEVELOPING of the philosophy….
Got it! I guess I wouldn’t have given much attention had it been said by anyone else, but I expected an author of a modern philosophy book to, at the very least, have the chiropractic objective clear, and when he messaged me saying that what I was saying was wrong I was a little confused and wanted to see what others had to say.
Paulo…I am appalled by your lack of respect for Dr Sinnott and your attempt to drive a wedge between him and Dr Strauss. Paraphrasing and repeating conversations second hand is not very attractive and I question your motives. Are you a chiropractor? A student? A spinologist? We don’t need folks creating more divisions and Dr Sinnott is a respected author and student of the philosophy. I would let him speak for himself and not use you as his mouthpiece. I am disappointed in the “tone” of your posts.
Enuf said.
Peter, please read my reply to Rob. It is very hard to even understand the “tone” of posts and while we may have disagrements on this blog, they are usually respectful. As BJ said Conflicts Clarify. I hope that is what will come from this discussion. I hope you will feel free to comment regularly. I believe you can add to the understanding of chiropractic that this blog is trying to engender.
JStraussDC 04/16/2012, 3:35 pm:
Eric, I guess you have finally gotten the best of this discussion….I haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about. But as long as it is “quite clear” to you, that’s all that matters. Perhapa if you would not get into theology or higher mathamatics but confine your discussion to chiropractic philosophy and to something beside “BJ said it, I believe it, that settles it” we could get somewhere.
Joe, isn’t that saying supposed to be, “GOD said it, I believe it, that settles it”? Oh wait….what was I thinking…. nevermind. I’ve always wondered though, if God and ui are synonymous terms/names, why the need to make up a new name (ui). Why not just call it what it is from the start and this discussion/confusion would never have occured. Is it possible that there was deliberate confusion created on the part of DD?????
Okay Joe,
You say you have no idea what I’m talking about…so I’ll try again. The Major Premise tells us something called ui organizes and maintains the matter of the universe. This statement could indeed be called a Law of Organization. So the Major Premise (a statement) describes a Law of Organization – one which identifies the causal relationship between ui and matter. Yet you say ui “is” a Law of Organization. Clearly ui is not a Law, but rather a component of the cause-effect relationship about which the law is based. So again I ask…what is ui? BJ, DD and RWS were willing to identify what they believed ui was. If you think it is something other than what they believed…then what do YOU think it is?
Joe,
Is hosting a philosophical blog all about preaching to the choir? Or is it about fielding tough questions that test the voracity of what we uphold as the truth? In my last post I believe that I presented a fair question, given the structure and wording of the Major Premise. If the logic behind my question is flawed and therefore does not merit an answer…please tell me how so. On the other hand, if my position is logical, then why do you not simply answer the question?
Eric, this blog is not about “preaching to the choir. It’s about having dialogue about chiropractic philosophy. Over the past 6+ weeks you have posted 63 comments to 7 different individuals, in response to probably a half dozen different posts. Each time you come back to the same topic…ui is God. Usually, I try to not respond to your comments in order to first give others an opportunity to respond. But it seems everyone is finding your discussion not productive and distracting from the intent of this blog. I don’t believe the “logic behind (your) question is flawed” because I, nor it seems anyone else can find the logic of your comments. Your argument always seems to get back to what DD, BJ or Stephenson said 50 to 100 years ago. We, on this blog are trying to grow in our understanding of chiropractic which requires that we challenge the thinking of each other and the aforementioned individuals. You, on the other hand seem to be unwilling to do that. That’s your prerogative. But that does not constitute philosophical discussion. It is blind faith…faith in 3 men who were just that, brilliant men, but flawed human beings like the rest of us. So their writings like mine and everyone else on this blog is not beyond scrutiny. Frankly Eric, I find your contributions have ceased to be constructive or productive. I think we, you and I, have come to a point where further discussion would be a waste of my time and I would hope yours. If you desire to continue to post your comments, I am willing to approve their publication and if others would like to dialogue with you they are more than welcome to. I on the other hand have other things I would like to discuss/explore/gain understanding from others on this blog and do not find discussion with you on your one issue helpful to my growth in chiropractic. I thank you for making me think and challenging my position, for the short time you did, but I believe we have gone as far as we can with this singular topic. I would encourage you to find a choir that would enjoy your preaching.
Joe,
Fair enough. This is indeed your chiropractic microcosm, and I THANK YOU for allowing me to visit for a while. I’m happy to admit that I have been incorrect at times in my life. I wonder if you are able to do the same? In particular, with respect to this ui debate, I think the written record here demonstrates the opposite of what you suggest. The fact that I happen to agree with the “big 3” in this discussion is not because “they say so” as you evasively opine, but because there is in fact a principle they are implying …one which you do not care to confront in this arena. So you have changed the meaning behind a key expression to place your own limits on the scope of chiropractic philosophy…limits that I believe can be easily maintained to give you your OSC without corrupting the meaning of the Major Premise as it was originally intended.
Just as you have a right to operate your own blog and have your own opinions, you also, by virtue of your considerable credentials, have a right to revise our philosophy as you see fit! Whether this creates a better path for our profession or not can then become a topic of fair and honest debate. What you, or I or anyone DO NOT have a right to do is CHANGE the meaning and intent behind expressions and concepts that were created by other legitimate authorities in our profession. These are THEIR ideas and either stand or fall based on their own merit.
Why not create your own fully modern Joe Strauss revision of the “33” in which the wording is free of any theological/spiritual inference? There would be nothing at all wrong with that, and you might find a good number of folks to sign on with you!
Unless you change your mind about further discussion here, I will respectfully let you have the last word.
Not sure if Dr. Sinnott will respond but could someone please explain what is referred to as ” the ramifications of the expression of the mental impulse in the tissue cell (matter)”?
Still learning..thanks!
Don, I’m not sure where the original conversation took place. I have only seen just the thread comments that you have read. I would hope Dr. Sinnott will comment. He always has valuable contributions to any philosophy discussion.
I do not speak for Dr Sinnott, but my understanding is that innate expression (the mental impulse) is always perfect, however, since it is transferred though matter (which is always imperfect) it’s ramification or end product at the cellular level is not. As Claude said in an earlier post “the dis-ease is in the nerve”. Adjustments then would step up the efficiency of the transferring medium (nerve), creating more ease. Therefore Chiropractic actually enhances cellular expression. (sorry Rob / Claude if I have botched things but it makes sense to me)
Steve,
Thank you for your sharing your understanding.
I am new to this post, so please forgive me if these questions are too complex or maybe even too obvious.
With the goal of OSC in mind, what do you commonly use/look for or ask a pm to determine if the enhanced expression is taking place?
What is the OSC’s view of PM’s ability to “hold” and adjustment? (remaining in an unsubluxated state versus not).
Does the OSC look for something metaphysical manifested physically and what is it?
Hey Don,
These questions would be better answered by Joe or Claude, they have a firmer grip on things and more experience. Keep in mind, improving cellular expression of the nerve means a higher percentage of mental impulses reaching the tissue for a more accurate reflection of innate intelligence.
Dr. Strauss…. Dr. Lessard… or anyone else… could you help me understand this better please?
With the goal of OSC in mind, what do you commonly use/look for or ask a pm to determine if the enhanced expression is taking place?
What is the OSC’s view of PM’s ability to “hold” and adjustment? (remaining in an unsubluxated state versus not).
Does the OSC look for something metaphysical manifested physically and what is it?
Good question Don. Since the enhanced expression is a metaphysical construct, greater innate control of the matter, we cannot use empirical information to demonstrate it but must use deduction, knowing that the tissues cells and organs of the body work better when interference is removed. It logically follows that it will result in material changes but it may be in the imperceptible range (brick in the bathtub and ocean principle). Thar’s why most OSC chiropractors do not focus on physical changes.
1. It is not our objective to change the matter, that’s medicine’s objective.
2. We cannot prove that it was the adjustment that did it.
This requires that the PM understand chiropractic and its unique objective.
The chiropractor must use something physical to note the manifestation of a metaphysical change (correction of the vertebral subluxation). I would suggest that one use whatever criteria were used to determine the VS and conclude you have made a change. I think all criteria have value depending on the chiropractor. Some are better than others and some in my opinion are more accurate and some are more difficult to master, so everone has their preference. That is the art of chiropractic and like every art form, has its strengths and weaknesses.
Thank you Dr. Strauss for your explanation. As always it is clear and on point. I personally find analogies such as your “brick in the bathtub and ocean principle” very effective in communications. Please keep up the great work!
I agree with your statements above.
Could you elaborate on your opinion of the criteria used to determine the VS. What have you found better/most effective?
What have you found to be most accurate? What do you use?
Always willing to hear an more experienced point of view.
Thanks!
Don,
The OSC is a chiropractor WHO chooses to practice the objective of chiropractic which is the LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. Period. –
– HOW to measure “results” of the adjustment? –
– Starting with the Major Premise and moving down principle 20, 21 and 22, we rationalize that the innate intelligence of the body, being 100% perfect, is best suited to accomplish the fulfillment of the exact needs of the living body. This fact, MUST be translated to the PMs in a way that touches, moves and allows them to accept logically its truth. Then, continuing education of the PMs will provide them with further understanding of this fact and will call them into making it a way of life for themselves. –
– As Joseph mentioned above, it is the enhancement of a metaphysical construct, and as such cannot be measured empirically. It can be measured over the long run rationally with deductive reasoning. For example, I have PMs that have been under care for 35 years. I even have one PM, Carolyn, who started chiropractic care with Dr. Van Horn (now deceased) in 1925, in Bristol Pa. and has been with me for 32 years and she comes to the office once/week and rarely miss a visit. Many OSC have the same experience. We can deduced reasonably that Carolyn understands “something” of chiropractic that allows her to be under care for 87 years! This to me, is a good criteria to “measure outcome assessments” regarding the practice of the objective of chiropractic. Again, we are using different methods of perception, not empiricism in that case. We are using authority (accepting the Major Premise) and rationalization (deductive reasoning based on sound principles) that a human living body is better off without vertebral subluxations. –
– Regarding criteria to determine the VS… Understanding that there is an innate awareness for every innate need, and that the adjustment is performed by the innate intelligence of the body, the OSC will use a technique to locate, analyze and introduce a specific educated universal force, with specific listing and line of drive into the specific subluxated vertebra, with the intention and hope that it will be used by the innate intelligence of the body to effectuate the specific adjustment of the specific vertebral subluxation. –
– Having said this, there are techniques that will promote specificity and an adequate “post-check”. Upper cervical pattern work, Nucca, Gonstead, and Activator to name a few. My favorite is the ADIO analysis developed by Reggie Rafael Gold, (he called it vertabraille), Miguel Bolufer of Valencia, Spain, and myself in 1976. Nicholas Spano of Central Pennsylvania created a course strictly dedicated to the teaching of “Muscle Palpation” analysis as he now calls it. Nick Spano has a whole seminar with CE approval in many States that he teaches about muscle palpation and advanced muscle palpation. The main reason why I prefer ( and it is only a preference) the ADIO analysis is it’s congruency with the understanding that the adjustment id being performed by the innate intelligence of the body. –
– The innate intelligence of the body uses para-vertebral muscles to move the subluxated vertebra back into its proper juxtaposition with the vertebra above, the one below or both. As I differentiate taut muscles, working muscles and spastic muscles, I can perform an immediate post-check. Remember Don, it is an art-form and is a part of the art of chiropractic.
– This technique is extremely conservative as I give the benefit of the doubt to the innate intelligence of the body. I do not introduce a thrust” twice. I understand that sometimes the universal force that I introduce may be used right away or later. Since my PMs get their spine checked regularly, there is always another time to introduce another thrust if it is needed. –
– The rest, is up to the innate intelligence of the body working through the limitations of the matter of each individual PM.-
– This is WHAT has been working for me for almost 40 years now and I hope it helps you Don.
I must point out Don, that the technique to use is one that should intend to change matter (correct vertebral subluxation ONLY) in order that the interference with innate forces be removed. There are many non-chiropractic techniques that change matter to simply restore structure to where “educated” think where the matter should be. This means that the intent of those non-chiropractic techniques is to change matter in a way that they suppose to know where the matter belongs (where the vertebra belongs due to educated sophisticated mathematical structural measurements). ONLY the innate intelligence of the body can do that as ONLY the innate intelligence is 100%, the requisite amount, proportional to its organization (pri.22). 🙂
Dr.Lessard,
Thank you for explanation. I practice in a similar manner. How do you explain or what do you tell your pm’s to expect with care? How do you explain when they come in clear? I do not have a box on the wall and have encountered some difficulty with these situations. Any advice? Do you have a box on the wall?
Don,
If you read the threads of the past on this blog, you will find out that it is NOT about WHAT to say about WHAT chiropractic is to the pm’s that matters. t’s WHO you choose to BE about WHO you are. Once YOU choose to BE an OSC, the rest follows and YOU don’t have to figure out WHAT to say to the pm’s. It just comes naturally from ADIO and all you have to do… is BE… WHO… YOU… choose to BE.-
NO script, NO text about WHAT. Only a choice to BE. Choose wisely Don and all the rest will follow according to your choice. It is as simple as that! –
And this is true regardless of whether or not you have a box on the wall.
AMAZING ISN’T IT??? 🙂
I don’t have the years in the field you do Dr. Lessard and I guess I make the mistake of worrying about the what more than I should. What if they don’t agree with my message? What can I say to convince them of the importance of vs and full expression on innate. You are absolutely correct, choose who you will be wisely and all the rest will follow.
Simplicity..there is no argument there 🙂
Don,
Reggie’s last words posted on facebook hours before he passed on are appropriate don’t you think?
“let us carry on the work! ADIO” 🙂
Hey Don, First of all you can not expect everyone to “get the big idea”. Your job is to expose them to it, in as many ways as you can. Just like you do not control how innate chooses to apply itself to the body, you just let it free to do so. As you immerse yourself in the ADIO philosophy your thoughts and words will convey the principles to those you communicate with. If you gave all your new patients a book, some would read it, some of those would get it, and some of those would apply it, you just never know who. Just keep giving out the book and answering questions as they arise. Be sure to enjoy those “AH HA” moments when they come.